Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Significance of Learner's Errors
The Significance of Learner's Errors
The Significance of Learner's Errors
FL DOD 622'
PUB DATE
MF-S0.25
HC -$D.52
NOV 67
11P.
r..rr
1.61
42...HA....V.S.a..4.44....01A.0.1.........141./
OOP
CAM
2,
tiers
JULIUS GROOS VERLKG HEIDELBERG P.O.B.
629
Postage included
.t
AllgoreirlOrrororrrtt-^
humain apprenne une deuxieme langue a condition d'tre expose a des faits
lumiere des hypotheses nouvelles il vaut mieux y voir des indices de l'exploration
du systeme de la nouvelle langue entreprise par l'eleve plutat que des signes d'une
persistance d'habitudes acquises anterieurement. La position prise par l'auteur est
la suivante: la maitrise de l'eleve de sa langue maternelle facilite l'apprentissage de
la deuxieme langue; les erreurs ne sont pas des signes d'obstacles mais des indices
d'une strategic utilisee dans l'apprentissage. Nous devons nous adapter aux besoins
de l'eleve plutot que de lui imposer nos conceptions a nous des methodes d'apprentissage (des "comment", des "quoi", des "quand").
bo
ANIS glad,
POSITION OR POLICY.
2,2., 2,4
162
,Itenx.4.1ef.
eine signifikante Korrelation haben. Vf. schligt als Arbeitshypothese vor, dati der
Weg zum Erlernen einer zweiten Sprache mindestens teilweise derselbe ist wie derjenige, der bei. Erlernen der ersten gegangen wird. Und trotzdem muii man vermuten, dais es einen Unterschied zwischen beiden gibt. Wer eine zv. cite Sprache
lernt, hat die folgende Hypothese zu testen: ist das System der neuen Sprache
identisch mit dem der schon bekannten Sprache oder nicht. Wenn sic nicht idendsch ist, worin besteht der Unterschied ? Eine groile Anzahl der begangenen
Fehler beruht auf der Muttersprachen-Interferenz in der gelaufigen Terminologie.
Im Licht der neuen Hypothesen istes besser, die Fehler als Indizien der Entdeckung
der neuen Sprache durch den Lernenden zu betrachten, als darin eine Fortsetzung
von einmal erworbenen Gewohnheiten zu sehen. Der Standpunkt des Vfs. ist der
folgende: Die Beherrschung der Muttersprache erleichtert das Erlernen der zweiten
Sprache; die Fehler sind nicht Zeichen irgendeiner Hemmung, sondern Indizien
eines bestimmten Vorgehens beim Erlernen. Wir miissenmehriiber den Lernenden
wissen. Wir mussen uns eher seinen Bediirfnissen anpassen, als ihm unsere Auffassung der Lehrmethoden aufzuzwingen (vom wie", was", and wann").
s.
_._
When one studies the standard works on the teaching of modern languages
it comes as a surprise to find how cursorily the authors deal with the question
of learners' errors and their correction. It almost seems as if they are dismissed
as a matter of no particular importance, as possible annoying, distracting, but
inevitable by-products of the process of learning a language about which the
teacher should make as little fuss as possible. It is of course true that the application of linguistic and psychological theory to the study of language learning
added a new dimension to the discussion of errors ; people now believed they
had a principled means for accounting for these errors, namely that they were
the result of interference in the learning of a second language from the habits of
the first language. The major contribution of the linguist to language teaching
was seen as an intensive contrastive study of the systems of the second language
and the mother-tongue of the learner ; out of this would come an inventory of
the areas of difficulty which the learner would encounter and the value of this
inventory would be to direct the teacher's attention to these areas so that he might
devote special care and emphasis in his teaching to the overcoming, or even
avoiding, of these predicted difficulties. Teachers have not always been very impressed by this contribution from the linguist for the reason that their practical
experience has usually already shown them where these difficulties lie and they
have not felt that the contribution of the linguist has provided them with any
significantly new information. They noted for example that many of the errors
with wk., .t they were familiar were not predicted by the linguist anyway. The
teacher has been on the whole, therefore, more concerned with bow to deal with
these areas of difficulty than with the simple identification of them, and here has
reasonably felt that the linguist has had little to say to him.
In the field of methodology there have been two schools of thought in respect
of learners' errors. Firstly the school which maintains that if we were to achieve
ti
-+-2, '2.2722
22....27-14^.22,,22.222.27,-,772222..2..11012.
163
a perfect teaching method the errors would never be committed in the first place,
and therefore the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of the present inadequacy
of our teaching techniques. The philosophy of the second school is that we live
in an imperfect world and consequently errors will always occur in spite of our
best efforts. Our ingenuity should be concentrated on techniques for dealing
with errors after they have occurred.
Both these points of view are compatible with the same theoretical standpoint
about language and language learning, psychologically behaviourist and linguistically taxanomic. Their application, to langue teaching is known as the audiolingual or fundamental skills method.
Both linguistics and psychology are in a state at the present time of what
Chomsky has called 'flux and agitatir n' (Chomsky 1966). What seemed to be
well established doctrine a few years ago is now the subject of extensive debate.
The consequence of this for language teaching is likely to be far reaching and we
are perhaps only now beginning to feel its effects. One effect has been perhaps
to shift the emphasis away from a preoccupation with teaching towards a study of
learning. In the first instance this has shown itself as a renewed attack upon the
prohlem the acquisition of the mother-tongue. This has inevitably led to a
consideration of the question whet'', a there are any parellels between the
processes of acquiring the mother-tongue and the learning of a second language.
The usefulness of the distinction between acquisition and learning has been
emphasised by Lambert (1966) and the possibility that the latter may benefit from
a study of the former has been suggested by Caroll (1966).
The differences between the two are obvious but not for that reason easy to
explain: that the learning of the mother-tongue is inevitable, whereas, alas, we
all know that there is no such ineitability about the learning of a second language; that the learning of the mother-tongue is part of the whole maturational
process of the child, whilst learning a second language normally begins only
after the maturational process is largely complete; that the infant starts with no
overt language behaviour, while in the case of the second language learner such
behaviour, of course, exists ; that the motivation (if we can properly use the term
in the context) for learning a first language is quite different from that for
learning a second language.
164
Within this new context the study of errors takes on a new importance and
will I believe contribute to a verification or rejection of the new hypothesis.
This hypothesis states that a human infant is barn with an innate predisposition to acquire language ; that he mustbe exposed to language for the acquisition
process to start; that he possesses an internal mechanism of unknown nature
which enable him from the limited data available to him to construct a grammar
of a particular language. How he does this is largely unknown and is the field of
intensive study at the present time by linguists and psychologists. Miller (1964)
has pointed out that if we wished to create an automaton to replicate a childs performance, the order in which it tested various aspects of the grammar could only
be decided after careful analysis of the successive stages of language acquisition
by human children. The first steps therefore in such a study are seen to be a
longitudinal description of a child's lazguage throughout the course of its development. From such a description it is eventually hoped to develop a picture of
the procedures adopted by the child to acquire language (McNeill 1966).
The application of this hypothesis to second language learning is not new and
is essentially that proposed fifty years ago by H. E. Palmer (1917). Palmer maintained that we were all endowed by nature with the capacity for assimilating language and that this capacity remained available to us in a latent state after the
acquisition of a primary language. The adult was seen as capable as the child of
acquiring of foreign language. Recent work (Lenneberg 1966) suggests that the
child who fails for any reason i. e. deafness, to acquire a primary language before
the age of 12 thereafter rapidly loses the capacity to acquire language behaviour
at all. This finding does not of course carry with it the implication that the language learning capacity of those who have successfully learned a primary language'
also atrophies in the same way. It still remains to be shown that the process of
learning a second language is of a fundamentally different nature from the process
primary acquisition.
If we postulate the same mechanism, thenwe may also postulate that the procedures or strategies adopted by the learner of the second language are fundamentally the same. The principal feature that then differentiates the two operations is
the presence or absence of motivation. If the acquisition of the first language is a
fulfilment of the predisposition to develop language behaviour, then the learning
of the second language involves the replacement of the predisposition of the infant
by some other force. What this consists of is in the context of this paper
irrelevant.
Let us say therefore that, given motivation, it is inevitable that a human being will
r.gr+77.51
m.7 c.
Tea
165
by which a first language is acquired. Such a proposal does not imply that the
course or sequence of learning is the same in both cases.
ism and not by those, Of the syllabus. After all, in the mother-tongue learning
situation the data available as input is relatively vast, but it is the child who selects
what shall be the input.
Ferguson (1966) has recently made the point that our syllabuses have been
based at best upon impressionistic judgements and vaguely conceived theoretical
principles where they have had any considered foundations at all. The suggestion
that we should take more account of the learner's needs in planning our syllabuses
is not new, but has not apparently led to any investigations, perhaps because of
the methodological difficulties of determining what the learner's needs might
actually be. Carroll (1955) made such a proposal when he suggested it might be
worth creating a problem-solving situation for the learner in which he must
find, by enquiring either of the teacher or a dictionary appropriate verbal re-
sponses for solving the problem. He pointed out that such a hypothesis contained
certain features of what was believed to occur in the process of language acquisition by the child.
A similar proposal actually leading to an experiment was made Mager but
not in connection with language teaching (Mager 1961); it is nevertheless worth
quoting his own words :
He points out as the conclusions he draws from his small scale experiment
meaningless to state rules for making mistakes'. It will be useful therefore hereafter to refer to errors of performance as mistakes,
reserving the term error to refer
to the systematic errors of the learner from which we are able to reconstruct his
knowledge of the language to date, i. e. his transitional competence.
Mistakes are of no significance to the process of language learning.
However
the problem of determining what is a learner's mistake and what a learner's
error
is one of some difficulty and involves a much more sophisticated study and
analysis of errors than is usually accorded them.
A learner's errors, then, provide evidence of
the system of the language that
he is using (i. e. has learned) at a particular point in the
course (and it must be
repeated that he is using some system, although it is not yet the right system).
They are significant in three different
ways. First to the teacher, in that they tell
him, if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards
the goal the learner
has progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn. Second,
they
provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what
strategies or procedures the learner, is employing in his discovery
of the language. Thirdly (and in a sense this is their most important aspect) they are indispensible to the learner himself, because we can regard the making of
errors
as a device the learner uses in order to learn. It is a way the learner has of testing
his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning. The making of
errors then is a strategy employed both by children acquiring their mothertongue and by those learning a second language.
Although the following dialogue was recorded during the study of child
language acquisition (Van Buren 1967) it bears unmistakable similarities to
dialogues which are a daily experience in the second language teaching classroom :
Mother : Did Billy have his egg cut up for him at breakfast ?
Child: Yes, I showeds him.
Mother : You what ?
Child: I showed him.
Mother: You showed him ?
Child: I seed him.
Mother: Ah, you saw him.
Child: Yes I saw him.
PreCIA,A.11,Mtrol.45,4.
..,....c.x.r.o. la,,,,,w,
;.....,77,.....t.,.....a.,,,,.,
t ert,..-
168
`correct' the child. Only in the case of one error did she provide the correct form
ht-rself: You saw him. In both the other cases, it was sufficient for
her to query
the child's utterance in such a form as : you what? or You showed him ? Simple
provision of the correct form may not always be the only, or indeed the most
effective, form of correction since it bars the way to the learner testing alternative
hypotheses. Making a learner try to discover the right form could often be
more
instructive to both learner and teacher. This is the import of Carroll's proposal
already referred to.
We may note here that the utterance ofa correct form cannot be taken as proof
that the learner has learned the systems which would generate that form in a
native speaker, since he may be merely repeating a heard utterance, in which case
we should class such behaviour, not as language, but in Spolsky's term (Spolsky
1966) language-like behaviour'. Nor must we overlook the fact that an utterance
which is superficially non-deviant is not evidence of a mastery of the language
systems which would generate it in a native speaker since such an utterance must
Although it has been suggested that the strategies of learning a first and
second language may be the same, it is nevertheless necessary at this point to
posit a distinction between the two. Whilst one may suppose that the first language learner has an unlimited number of hypotheses about the nature of the
...a.*.,lecrx
169
innate strategies to dictate our practice and 'determine our syllabus ; we may
learn to adapt ourselves to his needs rather than impose upon him our preconceptions of how he ought to learn, what he ought to learn and when he ought to
learn it.
S. P. Corder
Department of Applied Linguistics
University of Edinburgh
14, Buccleuch Place
Edinburgh 8
REFERENCES
we.
Alli%O.ViCiMPON4ii44,01
'Jo
170
*11.1.0111,..